And perhaps because she is a woman — a former beauty queen at that — in an exceedingly macho state, not everyone has taken her seriously. Her schoolmarm look, she has said, was developed as a defense against just that attitude. Still, some who know her well believe her to be a policy lightweight. Others accuse her of focusing only on oil and gas and ignoring other important issues — such as healthcare and education — that she is not particularly passionate about. (Similar charges have been leveled at McCain as well.) Though there has been a mix of reaction to her selection by McCain, she is an exceedingly popular figure in her state. Opponents cross her at their peril.
“The landscape up here is littered with people who have underestimated her,” said Eric Croft, a Democratic former state representative who enlisted her help when he investigated a Republican oil commissioner for ethical breaches. “Maybe she is not ready for prime time, or maybe she is going to litter the national landscape with people who have underestimated her.”
She came of age politically when the decades-long iron grip of Republicans in Alaska was just beginning to loosen, partly through scandal and partly through changing demographics. For three decades or more, Alaska was an overwhelmingly Republican state. It was dominated by a trio of politicians who were in lock-step with the oil and gas industry but managed to remain overwhelmingly popular because they brought home billions of federal dollars.
But the era of those men — Sen. Ted Stevens, former Gov. Frank Murkowski and Rep. Don Young (author of the infamous “bridge to nowhere” earmark) — was already drawing to a close when Palin in 2005 mounted her successful challenge to replace Murkowski as governor. An FBI probe, which culminated in a raid of legislators’ offices in August 2006, resulted in criminal charges against a handful of legislators. Stevens is under indictment for failing to report gifts, and Young is defending himself against bribery charges
I like the fact that Palin took on the corrupt establishment in Alaska. That the crooks were of her own party makes me like her even more. It shows her as a principled public servant and, unlike with her current opposition, the principles are good ones.
Check out getreligion.org for Terry Mattingly’s take-down of the “she’s a creationist” line that started in Wired magazine — it isn’t even close to true, at least politically.
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3870
Apologies to any ID or creationism supporters here (and i know there’s many of you), but it is interesting how quickly they ginned up this little wedge issue culture war false-factoid and got it out there. The MSM is like a ravening lion, prowling . . . wait, that’s . . .
Pretty good article for the LAT, though I bet 3 hours in a Juneau bar would suffice to get all that info disgorged from the locals. As usual, LAT messes up the following agitprop items:
1 “has said creationism should be taught in schools ” [i] She recommended that as an alternative concept, not the sole line of instruction. Perhaps this might make Creationism [b]less appealing[/b] upon proper discussion.[/i]
2. ” advocated a constitutional ban on providing healthcare benefits to same-sex partners” [i]She might have advocated such a constitutional ban as she just vetoed a legislative initiative to accomplish the same thing as being unconstitutional. Which is a plus in my books, as it shows integrity to veto what you personally support.[/i]
Yep. Dems aren’t getting it — integrity isn’t flawless moral behavior, it’s how you deal with the flaws and problems when life breaks apart in your hands, as all fragile, temporary things will do. The more they say “oh, see, she/they are hypocrites!” the more i think Americans will think “wait a minute, that isn’t what i call hypocrisy.”
Hmm…
1. She supports teaching our children lies (creationism);
2. She supports keeping our children ignorant about sex in a sex-driven, disease-infested world (abstinence-only education);
3. She supports the banning of books (censorship at libraries);
4. Despite her so-called conservative social views, her daughter is pregnant at age 17, and she thinks it’s a great idea for her to get married at age 17;
5. She thinks it’s responsible to have a newborn infant with down syndrome, along with 4 other children, and a grandchild, to take care of, and try to run the world’s most powerful country at the same time;
6. She is fresh out of the PTA and was mayor of a town that she left 20 million dollars in debt, before becoming governor of one of the most homogenic, sparsely-populated states, which is completely isolated from the rest of the country by Canada;
7. Cindy McCain and others insist she has foreign policy experience “because Alaska is so close to Russia;”
8. Her own family members will not agree to vote for her, regardless of their political affiliations (her own mother-in-law says she doesn’t know what Sarah will bring to the ticket, and may vote for Obama);
9. The two major Alaskan newspapers from her home state don’t support her and think it’s a bad idea;
10. McCain met her once before deciding she should be a heartbeat away from the Presidency (he’s 72 years old and has had melanoma 4 times).
Yet, national security and family values are the most important things on the Republican agenda? I don’t get it. I’ll take a brilliant, if left-leaning, JFK wanna-be over a sheltered soccer mom who probably thinks the best way to parent is to boycott Disney or something any day of the week. Remember who’s going to have their hand on the button, people…
Making creationism as an issue is a big mistake if the Dems want to go there. She’s thoroughly within the mainstream on that one.
Mark,
Great satrical post! Glad no one really takes your ‘talking points’ seriously. Keep it up, though, in the midst of Gustav and Hannah, we need more comic relief.
#5 do you actually have a reference citation for your second bullet?
Mark
You be a tad bit mixed up. This is T19, not the Daily KOS
Whose hand do I want on the Button?
I’ll take my chances with a mother of five who would not abort her Down Syndrome child–and all around American Gal who participated in championship basketball, a beauty pageant, mixes it up with the good-ol-boys and wins, and hunts and fishes on the side with her high school sweetheart. In other words, a solid citizen of bed-rock values whose participation in governing would be by the people and of the people. That is the kind of person I want on the button.
#6 – being within the mainstream doesn’t mean it’s true.
#7 – dismissing valid statements as “talking points” does not make them any less valid.
#8 – All of those are readily available facts via google. Unless you’re requesting a citation about her “thinking” it’s responsible. In that case, I can only point to the fact that she hasn’t dropped out yet.
# 9 – I did not post the article to which I replied.
#10 – Bed rock values? Maybe political scandals, objectification of women, and teenage pregnancy work for you…
Mark, you are right. “Talking points” [i]are[/i] often based on fact. I should have said “Propaganda”.
Jim E.
#11 I found amusing your equation of “abstinence only education” with children being ignorant of sex. Obviously, that was not Bristol Palin’s problem. I was hoping that somebody could explain your less than illuminating talking point. Somehow, I also could not put my finger on your point about epidemiology having some scientific insight into the propriety of high school sex ed approaches. Or, are you insinuating that Bristol is an STD vector already?
#11, you’re a disseminator of falsehood and half-truth, but there’s no point in rebutting you since you’re not going to listen anyway.
Mark would probably find fault with Mother Theresa or Eleanor Roosevelt.
Mother Theresa is one thing, Eleanor Roosevelt is quite another.
Well, to give credit where credit may be due, the following touches on Eleanor despite here socialist leanings:
“In the 1940s, she was one of the co-founders of Freedom House and supported the formation of the United Nations. Eleanor Roosevelt founded the UN Association of the United States in 1943 to advance support for the formation of the UN. She was a delegate to the UN General Assembly from 1945 and 1952, a job for which she was appointed by President Harry S. Truman and confirmed by the United States Senate. During her time at the United Nations she chaired the committee that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. President Truman called her the “First Lady of the World” in tribute to her human rights achievements.[1]”
And, I’m not a democrat by any stretch of the imagination.
Freedom House made my heart swell. The rest deflated it entirely.
Oh well, it just points out what a dedicated woman can accomplish and that was a whole different era. Fortunately, Palin has all the attributes of conservative leadership that Mark detests.
You know, the cool thing about MarkTXK’s list of what he believes are “bugs” is that for so many of us they are features.
Which just goes to show . . . liberals and conservatives really don’t share the same values or basic foundational worldview.
Were I to list the “bugs” about Obama, MarkTXK would see them as features.
We have, shall we say, “opposing values.”
Nah, if it was a Democrat, especially a black one, who had an unwed teenage daughter, you’d decry the moral relativism and degradation of society that led to “our inner city youth” being so “lost.” No, we share values. It’s just that you don’t see them in the “other side.”
Both sides see unwed teenage mothers as a failure. It’s just that you think it’s a product of liberalism, which attempts to teach people the consequences of having unprotected sex. I happen to think it’s a product of conservatism, which denies the fact that all humans are sexual, and fails to inform of the consequences, choosing instead to “dirty” it up and pretend that no one does it.
You are okay with it happening, as long as it wasn’t condoned. I want to actually prevent it from happening. If that’s a difference in values, then yeah. But I prefer to think of it as a difference in priority. Everyone values life. Some people just think it’s important for our offspring to get to live it, unimpeded by not just the consequences of poor choices, but by having made them in the first place.
But, you will go on promoting your “features,” blind to the fact that things could be much better. And I will teach my children the truth about the world. And part of that truth is, if Sarah Palin really lived up to the social conservatism she claims, then she would be barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, and shutting her mouth, like all the male of her breed would secretly like her to do.
[i] Such anger on this blog is unwarranted. Please take a break from posting. [/i]
-Elf Lady
RE: “you’d decry the moral relativism and degradation of society . . . ”
Oh — is *that* what you wanted.
Well then . . . I decry the moral relativism and degradation of society which leads to any unwed pregnancies.
It’s no different for the daughter of Palin as for your stereotyped “black” Democrat.
There — that was easy. ; > )
RE: “It’s just that you think it’s a product of liberalism . . . ”
Not at all. We’re just all sinners. You know . . . the sins that liberals don’t acknowledge but say that conservatives are just “dirtying up” “natural” behaviors. ; > )
RE: “. . . and pretend that no one does it.”
Wow — and to be so ignorant of conservatives too! We don’t at all pretend that nobody sins. In fact, much of our theories of government are about acknowledging that people sin, all the time.
RE: “You are okay with it happening . . . ”
Not at all — I just don’t believe that the government has much to say or much impact when it does say anything.
RE: “I want to actually prevent it from happening. . . . ”
Heh — see preceding point. No, you want [i]the government[/i] to attempt to “prevent it from happening.”
RE: “If that’s a difference in values, then yeah.”
Yes indeed. Like I said . . . see preceding point about just one of those opposing values.
RE: “Some people just think it’s important for our offspring to get to live it, unimpeded by not just the consequences of poor choices . . . ”
Yep — simply [i]a perfect expression[/i] of liberal political values. Liberals are like that, it’s true. Like I said — mutually opposing values.
RE: “But, you will go on promoting your “features,†. . .”
Thank you, I will.
RE: “And part of that truth is, if Sarah Palin really lived up to the social conservatism she claims, then she would be barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, and shutting her mouth, like all the male of her breed would secretly like her to do.”
Makes me smile to read this.
Because . . . [i]that’s[/i] what you’re really [i]livid[/i] about.
And that’s what liberals in general are really livid about. Conservatives found — and promoted — a [i]female[/i].
And you absolutely despise the fact that . . . the [i]woman[/i] is . . . a conservative in values, and that we like it.
And you are enraged that [i]men[/i] — conservative men, MarkTXK . . . no wait . . . conservative [i]Southern[/i] men, MarkTXK . . . are going to absolutely adore voting for her, just as we would have adored voting for Margaret Thatcher had we had the chance.
And that puts the lie to your most cherished beliefs — no, your silly illusion that makes you feel all enlightened — about conservative men. It just burns you up that they don’t actually believe the thoughts in your final hate-filled, enraged, foam-flecked fantasy . . . your most cherished fantasy about them . . .
It’s pretty sickening isn’t it, to have to watch how thrilled all of those conservative males are with someone of her beliefs and values and ideology. Maddening . . .
And you know what, MarkTXK? All us conservatives . . . we know that about you and other liberals. And we’re smiling.
And now . . . you know that we know it.
Both sides see unwed teenage mothers as a failure…
You are okay with it happening, as long as it wasn’t condoned. I want to actually prevent it from happening.
Well, your side is doing a bang up job, isn’t it. Given that we’ve had sex ed and condoms in schools for years now there seems to be a flaw in your method.
Oh, I remember, it’s that neanderthals like us keep preventing pregnant teens from killing their babies. No baby, no teen pregnancy. It’s so simple. It must be that our hatred of women keeps us from seeing he truth of it.
on a lighter note, #6 cuases me intellectual angst:
Making creationism as an issue is a big mistake if the Dems want to go there. She’s thoroughly within the mainstream on that one.
Who are you and what have you done with John Wilkins! 🙂
Mark: What a crock of maure!
But athanasius . . . you just gotta revel in it, though. ; > )
That should read ‘manure’.
I don’t suffer fools lightly. Mark is a perfect example of the Hewey Newton, Diana Oughton, Michael Moore, Timothy Leary school of leftwing Marxist thinking and logic. You bash your head against a stone wall trying to debate them.
Not to preach to the choir, but for anyone who needs to know — there is no such thing as “abstinence only” education. That is a liberal media/pressure group creation.
There are groups who want to teach that “only abstinence” gives you a 100% guarantee of outcomes as to health and pregnancy, and that “contraceptive health” is largely a misnomer, as they neither protect much against disease and rarely work according to the official stats for pregnancy protection (car seats and parental bedrooms at 4:15 pm being awkward venues for following packaging directions with precision). “Comprehensive” means they tell the packaging story, and hand out packaging, with their unreliable contents.
But “abstinence only” is largely a media artifact — maybe the FLDS teaches that, and some Christian schools — but the battle in our public schools is if anyone is allowed to teach that contraceptives are not “safe sex.” To say that “Only abstinence” is secure and safe — you can’t teach that in a free speech zone, apparently.
I’ve sat in on a number of so-called “abstinence only” programs, and they don’t hide the existence or details of the functioning of prophylactics, or even the delights and satisfactions of orgasms. They just tell you more than that . . . and your problem is?
See #5 again. I knew she is an evangelical, but does she seriously wish public schools to teach “creationism?” I don’t remember reading that. If indeed she does favor this, then #5 is not far from the truth in this matter. The public school should hold as a fundamental instructional value to those things which are in some sense demonstrably true, whether they are calculus or poetry. Creationism is well outside these parameters. She is free to believe what she wants, obviously, but this freedom cannot be applied to public education’s standards.
I know she favors “intelligent design” but this is by no means the same thing as creationism. One may teach intelligent design in a public school because both “intelligence” and ‘design” have demonstrated denotations, and t he application of these elements to the nature of the universe is a legitimate application of the known to the unknown – which is all science does, at last.
As to her daughter’s pregnancy, there is little that can be said to defend her – except to “rally round the flag.” Kendall’s entry above implies that, in such a case as an “unwanted” or “accidental pregnancy oout of wedlock,, all can or will be well, but the evidence does not support that. (And I assume, without specific evidence to the contrary, tha this pregnancy is unwanted.) For an evangelical parent, such a pregnancy should have been cause to go up one side of her and down the other, because her act is patently irresponsible and because it has caused legitimate concerns about her performance as a parent. I wonder what the governor’s husband had to say. And it is hard not to conclude – evidence here is short – that the father of her daughter’s child had no intention of marrying her until the vice presidency came into view.
I have heard from a number of people who have traveled in Canada, (and three who have lived there) that sex is as easy to come by as marijuana – and the use of this last is a commonplace indulgence, widespread to the point of being universal in the state.
Is this all tawdry gossip or is there some truth in it? Does anyone know? Larry
The report I heard (one report, while flipping channels for storm news) stated that she supported teaching ID ALONGSIDE Evolution to give balance. Not that she was against teaching Evolution or that she only wanted ID taught, but suggested BOTH.
So that’s a ‘red herring’ as well.
And I’m not sure if they used the term Intelligent Design or Creationism. If I knew the channel I would know which term was used (MSNBC, CNN would use Creationism no matter which theory was being proposed, FOX would use Intelligent Design if that is what it was).
And it is hard not to conclude – evidence here is short
Hmm. To me that seems oxymoronic, Larry. The shortage of evidence should make it compelling not to conclude.